With a background in economics and public policy, I've covered domestic and international energy issues since 1998. I'm the editor-in-chief for Public Utilities Fortnightly, which is a paid subscription-based magazine that was established in 1929. My column, which also appears in the CSMonitor, has twice been named Best Online Column by two different media organizations. Twitter: @Ken_Silverstein. Email: ken@silversteineditorial.com

Key Republicans: Solving Climate Change More Important Now Than Ever

By now, everyone has heard that unmitigated climate change can lead to ice caps melting, sea levels rising and heat waves escalating. But the world is just now starting to listen to major national Republicans who are pleading with their party’s current leaders to accept the phenomenon as real and to help shape an outcome.

It all comes atop a U.S. Supreme Court decision last week that has essentially given the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the right to regulate 83 percent of the emissions that are released from power plants. That’s conservative Justice Antonin Scalia’s assessment, who acknowledged that this is nearly everything the agency had requested.

In a phone interview, the former EPA chief under George W. Bush and the former Governor of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman, told this reporter that many national conservatives are deferential to those scientists who say that global warming is largely a function of man-made emissions, notably from burning fossil fuels. But she admits that such thinkers are generally “moderate” and, by nature, are not as vocal as some of the more extreme members of the party.

Global Warming in Guana (Photo credit: minds-eye)

Such challenges and obstacles, however, are no reason to give up — that the scientists are saying that the worst effects of climate change are yet to come. She adds that the money spent repairing the most recent natural disasters is a glimpse into the future. As a governor, Whitman said that she devoted countless hours and public funds to cleaning New Jersey’s shoreline — investments accompanied by handsome returns in terms tourism dollars.

To this end, she says that the United States should take a similar approach and that public investments in newer and cleaner technologies will likewise bear fruit. The former EPA chief says that she is sympathetic to those states whose economies have relied on coal and whose coal miners will be adversely affected. But Whitman says that responsible leadership is about making difficult choices.

“One thing you learn when you are in a position to make decisions is that you have to do what is in the best interest of the greatest number,” Whitman says. “The decision will have the same impact on everyone but you have to mitigate the negative impact. I’d rather see us bring the new energy technologies to those states most affected. You cannot walk away from what will have the biggest benefit because there will be people who don’t get as good of a deal. At some point, you have to have leadership.”

Whitman recognizes that the leaders of certain states that are reliant on coal or coal-fired generation will not be able to advocate for climate change mitigation. As such, party leaders should allow them to vote against such legislation but that coalitions should be built to get meaningful laws through Congress.

As the leader of a state who had prided herself on job creation, Whitman is not tone deaf to the economic fallout in states such as Kentucky and West Virginia. But their strategy should be to angle themselves to attract the public funds that will flow into greener technologies, which she says are not just renewables but also nuclear energy — or the services that surround such plants.

The nation’s cities, she adds, are at the forefront of adopting sustainability standards — choosing to improve the quality of life and to attract people and jobs — to their regions. Whitman points to major companies that are actively improving their communities by pledging to reduce their carbon footprints, as well as that of their suppliers: Texas InstrumentsTexas Instruments Inc., United TechnologiesUnited Technologies Corp. and WalMart.

The U.S. Supreme Court said in 2007 that the EPA could regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act of 1990. Challenges to that ruling have been upheld, including the latest one that does limit the agency’s reach to “major emitters.” With the wind at its back, the Obama administration released an executive order in June that pushes states to cut their carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent by 2030.

Those jurisdictions can achieve that by substituting nuclear, natural gas or renewables for coal as well as by improving energy efficiencies and implementing free market cap-and-trade programs. That executive order will assuredly get challenged in the courts. But the U.S. Supreme Court has already shown that it will uphold environmental protections, within limits.

“Ultimately, it would be far better to have Congress do this because executive orders are not enforceable until they go through the courts,” Whitman says, who is the CASEnergy Coalition Chair. “There are a number of Republicans across the country who get this but they are reluctant to step out. There is a litmus test.”

Whitman appeared last week before a U.S. Senate panel along with three other former Republican EPA chairs, all of whom say that they are convinced that climate change is real and that the best approach going forward is to work toward a resolution. The others: William Ruckelshaus, who served under Presidents Nixon and Reagan; Lee Thomas, who also served under President Reagan and, William Reilly, who served under the first President Bush.

In his testimony, Ruckelshaus said that ever since the EPA’s inception in 1970 under President Nixon, there have been dire predictions about the ensuing environmental rules and regulations. Meantime, none of the “predicted economic and social calamity” ever came to pass.

“We believe there is a legitimate scientific debate over the pace and effects of climate change but no legitimate debate over the fact of the earth’s warming or over man’s contribution,” adds Ruckelshaus.

With their toughest political battles behind them, the four former EPA chiefs are freer to speak their minds and to champion science over politics. Today’s political reality, of course, is divisive and derisive, and nastier than ever before. As Whitman says, though, the climate may be challenging but the cause has never been more important.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Now if we could just get Forbes to stop pretending that climate change denial is a mainstream viewpoint and stop publishing its ongoing voluminous spew of climate change denial by fringe groups that are not recognized in the world of science (like Heartland Institute)…we will then be making headway.

Until Forbes pulls the Heartland Institute columns, however, I think the magazine should give Dove World Outreach Center and Terry Jones a column right alongside Heartland Institute’s James Taylor. Place Terry Jones pieces under the heading “Political-Cultural.”

And for each “contribution” James Taylor offers providing absolutely no meaningful new data to the conversation, Forbes should permit Terry Jones to advertise a book burning event.

Since clearly Forbes seems inclined to shift in that extremist direction, why not give equal time to other causes. In fact, while they’re at it, they should give Heartland Institute more space for promoting tobacco and asbestos.

The answer, to the mixed chagrin of conservatives who seem to be championing the fossil fuel industry, is that states are taking the lead, and in some cases are so far ahead that it is not a question of whether they will meet the EPA guidelimes but how much they will exceed them.

RE: “One thing you learn when you are in a position to make decisions is that you have to do what is in the best interest of the greatest number,” Whitman says.

Sounds like a great sound BITE, but Climate Change is not going to get solved by partisn politics and as we know the USA is now in Political Grid-Lock, thanks to the Rep. Party doing everything it can to prevent the Dem.’s from accomplishing anything that will move the USA forward.

That said, there is one thing the Rep.’s are doing and that is to “gut” the EPA so that what does get enforced is nothing compared to what the EPA “used” to be able to enforce.

Climate Change, or “even” clean Air & Water cannot be solved if a large portion of the Planet is focused on making things worse for the rest of the planet, and that is what needs to be “fixed”.

Politicians should N☢T be able to make unhealthy situations appear healthy by changing our environmental laws to protect Big Industries instead of US!

We are seeing our own US Government doing less for mankind because they are now being regulated not to by a Congress that is now looking out for what is good for Big Business instead of the health of the public.

Said another way, a democracy is only as good as those that are elected to run it.

In the USA we now have a dysfunctional Government because it profits the wealthiest donors to have those that they helped elect make sure it stays that way! Since GWB term in office and especially his packing of the SCOTUS, things have been getting steadily worse especially for the once comfortable middle class that is now being reduced in size at an ever accelerating rate.

GOP guts EPA www.huff.to/1cHHQcj

Another Regulatory failure because there can be no true public oversight unless the public has access to critical information about its own safety! The Government has continued to change safety regulations to protect the very industries that it is supposed to regulate.

I think it would be a great idea for Forbes to give the ongoing Climate Change (CH) “debate” column space to those both Pro & Con to CH moderated by Ken Silverstein. This would be a step in the right direction for expanding the public debate on CH, so it does not just get “used” by one Political Party against the other or even worse as a PR marketing ploy by one Big Energy provider against another, as some are claiming that Nuclear is now doing against Coal, when in reality they both are not Green when all their “cradle to grave” processes are considered.

I’d like to suggest the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) be asked for comments, as they have written some of the best Pro CH articles I’ve seen and I’m sure they and others would be a great counterpoints to any Con CH articles Forbes/Ken Silverstein might select.

This is the Grate Debate of our time, who better than Forbes/Ken Silverstein to moderate it it?

Captain, you are quite generous with your compliments? I appreciate that. Getting to one of our readers said in their comments is the credibility of those writing in on all sides, especially the ones who are skeptical. For starters, if your think tank is funded by those who have economic interests, then this should be clearly stated or they should not be given such prominent space. Having said that, I have many friends whom I respect who are skeptical of some aspect of the science that underscores climate change. I’d like to hear their views. For the record, these are not folks who deny the science in its entirety and they are not folks who have an economic interest other than in how their tax dollars would be allocated. They have some concerns that need to be addressed and they have an open mind about it all. Again, thanks for your confidence and the debate should center on credible parties, and not include those who are paid spokespeople for a cause. Ken

Um, no….scientific debates are settled by scientific consensus bodies. The scientific consensus bodies have agreed that CO2 is causing global warming. We have scientific consensus bodies so each of us as individuals don’t have to be expert in everything.

When someone attacks a scientific body’s conclusions, that person is spitting at the scientific method. It particularly disgusting when someone with an advanced science degree does so. If someone has evidence to refute a scientific consensus body’s conclusions, that person is free to publish in the peer reviewed literature.

Ken – Rarely do people tell me you are “generous with your compliments”…

I agree with your comments and think that all those receiving some sort of support and/or have a desire to receive some sort of benefit (other than what everyone receives, say as a “taxpayer”) should declare that, as part of every comment they post.

Perhaps it would be helpful for Forbes to develop and post a short list of abbreviations that everyone could then use that would make it easier for everyone to list their own associations.

Everyone should have a voice since we all are directly affected by Global Climate Change (GCC) and it is only by examining all the different aspects of any complicated issue are we able to even hope to find workable solutions that will withstand the test of time; hopefully Forbes will provide the forum for that balanced discussion.

Think Tanks are no different than Big Industries or their Professionals are, since both groups tend to be not only well informed but also well funded, so that they can produce polished articles, something that all those without “connections” have trouble doing.

What I am suggesting is more of a debate on a specific topic, in this case Global Climate Change (GCC), that would be ongoing so that all of the various viewpoints can be discussed as part of the GCC discussion which will hopefully lead to a much better understanding of the problems of GCC and perhaps even some potential solutions.

p.s. I hope that Forbes will also consider adding an edit button that will allow a period of editing our comments once posted, for those of us that are keyboard challenged…

926 … I’ll be the first to say that while Forbes.com does have it issues, I’ve found that my comments are not only posted but are sometimes “Called Out” which is surprising to me, since I usually do not support the Industry viewpoint that is shared by what I consider most of Forbes readers, especially on topics like Nuclear Power Plant Safety, Nuclear Utility Regulation by both the NRC and/or State Regulators or Utilities putting what is good for the USA or their ratepayers before shareholder profits.

RE: “When someone attacks a scientific body’s conclusions, that person is spitting at the scientific method”.

I see it quite differently, I see it as regular people demanding better from all those touting the “scientific method”, because it agrees with what is best for their employers. If scientists cannot explain to us what is really going on, in a way that we can understand, then that means that these scientists don’t really understand what is actually happening and therefore should not be trusted as having the solutions that we all can rely upon as being factual. Too many are now using “Science” as an excuse to tell people “They just don’t understand” when in reality, those doing the talking don’t really understand either…

Consensus is not a tenet of the scientific method, period. Secondly, peer review is no guarantee of accuracy, either. In all my 4 years of study to obtain my B.S in civil engineering, there was NO mention at all concerning consensus. All the multiple physics and chemistry courses……nothing mentioned about consensus.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

The practice of “bloodletting” was settled science in all the medical science consensus bodies for ages. Bloodletting was based on an ancient system of medicine in which blood and other bodily fluid were regarded as “humors” that had to remain in proper balance to maintain health. It was the most common medical practice performed by physicians from antiquity until the late 19th century, a span of almost 2,000 years.